4_Kings_20:9 And Isaias said to him: This shall be the sign from the Lord, that the Lord will do the word which he hath spoken: Wilt thou that the shadow go forward ten lines, or that it go back so many degrees? 10 And Ezechias said: It is an easy matter for the shadow to go forward ten lines: and I do not desire that this be done, but let it return back ten degrees.
[With comment:]
Lines, according to the usual course of the sun. An instantaneous motion of this kind would, in reality, be as difficult, as the retrogradation. But it might not strike the people so much. H.
Some take the lines to designate hours. But the sun is never up twenty hours in that country; and it must have been at such a height, as that it might appear visibly to recede, or to go forward, ten lines. We may therefore suppose, that they consisted only of half hours, (T.) or less. C.
If the retrograde motion were instantaneous, as Cajetan believes, the day would only be five hours longer than usual; (M.) but if otherwise, it would be ten; as the sun would occupy five hours in going back, and as many to regain its former station. T.
Usher supposes that the night was as much shortened, that so astronomical observations may still be verified without any confusion. But that would introduce a fresh miracle. Some assert that only the shadow went back, without any derangement in the heavenly bodies. Spinosa laughs at the ignorance of those people, who mistook the effects of a parhelion for a miracle. This author may boast of his superior knowledge. But how came the sages of Babylon (v. 12.) to be unacquainted with such a natural cause? How came it so opportunely (C.) at the time appointed by the prophet? What improbable explanations are not those forced to admit, who deny to the Almighty the power of changing his own works! H.
The silence of profane historians respecting this miracle, is of little consequence. Herodotus (ii. 142.) seems to hint at it, as well as at that under Josue; (x.) being informed "by the Egyptians, that during 10340 years, the sun had risen four times in an extraordinary manner. It had risen twice where it ought naturally to set, and had set as often where it should rise." He might have said more simply, that the sun had twice gone back. See Solin, 45. C.
S. Dion. Areop. ep. 7. ad Polycarp.
This last author thinks that this day was twenty hours longer than usual, supposing that the lines designate so many hours, and that the sun kept going back for ten hours. W.
Source: Veritas Bible, Douai Reims with Haydock comment, for IV book of Kings, chapter 20.
http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/4_Kings_20
My emphasis./HGL
Geocentric explanation involves no philosophical problem, unless somehow you belong to the modern minority who sees some problem with Geocentrism as such.
RépondreSupprimerOne heliocentric explanation would be that everything stopped up except the battle.
Would that include time itself?
And if not, what would be the cause of time?
Many have called in question this miracle, with Maimonides, or have devised various means to explain it away, by having recourse to a parhelion or reflection of the sun by a cloud, or to a light which was reverberated by the mountains, after the sun was set, &c. (Prœdam iv. 6.; Spinosa; Grotius; Le Clerc) --- But if these authors believe the Scriptures, they may spare themselves the trouble of devising such improbable explanations, as this fact is constantly represented as a most striking miracle. If St. Paul (Hebrews xi. 30,) make no mention of it, he did not engage to specify every miracle that had occurred. He does not so much as mention Josue, nor the passage of the Jordan, &c., so that it is a matter of surprise that Grotius should adduce this negative argument, to disprove the reality of the miracle. (Calmet) --- The pretended impossibility of it, or the inconvenience arising to the fatigued soldiers from the long continuance of the day, will make but small impression upon those who consider, that God was the chief agent; and that he who made all out of nothing, might easily stop the whole machinery of the world for a time, and afterwards put it in motion again, without causing any derangement in the different parts. (Calmet) --- It is not material whether the sun turn round the earth, or the contrary. (Haydock) --- The Hebrews generally supposed that the earth was immovable; and on this idea Josue addresses the sun. Philosophers have devised various intricate systems: but the Scripture is expressed in words suitable to the conceptions of the people. The exterior effect would be the same, whether the sun or the earth stood still. Pagan authors have not mentioned this miracle, because none of the works of that age have come down to us. We find, however, that they acknowledged a power in magic capable of effecting such a change.
The words "Pagan authors have not mentioned this miracle, because none of the works of that age have come down to us," are, as seen from Haydock comment on other miracle, except Egyptian evidence through Herodotus.
Now, if we remain Geocentric we can say Sun and Moon stopped while Heavens above them, principle of time, moved on. No philosophical difficulty.